Fraud industry Stylist Makes Off With Thousands Of Dollars Worth Of Designer Garments Using Instagram

image: @a_mensan Instagram

A person going by the name of Arnaud Henry Mensan’s, has made off with stealing thousands of dollars worth of designer garments and accessories by posing as an industry insider. According to Dazed, Mensan used false credentials on his instagram page to trick emerging and established fashion brands into sending him their fashion samples, under the pretense they would be featured in prestigious fashion editorials. 

His Instagram account (as seen above) portrays him as an fashion editor at Dazed Media and affiliates him with well-known fashion publications such as Vogue, W magazine, AnOther, Nylon, Paper, Bullet, among others and also claims that he was named in Business of Fashion's 500 list of people shaping the global fashion industry, but none of this is in-fact true.

image: @a_mensan Instagram

Most of the designers believed the suspect’s social media account and delivered the items to him, and as a result, he is reported to have stolen thousands of dollars in clothing and accessories, and is said to have pieces from brands such as Moschino, Vetements, Balmain, Rick Owens, Chanel among others

Along with this being a case of clear fraud, the incident also homes in on the specific type of capital valued in the field of fashion (reputational) and the powerful influence of social media.

It seems that Mensan was able to get away with defrauding the industry by winning over followers and becoming a social media power player. This allowed him to influence key players in the industry. His Instagram account, which prior deactivation few days ago, was followed by over 92,000 Instagram users. In order to garner the trust of designers in the industry – Mensan aligned himself with established fashion publications and he regularly posted images on his instagram feed of photo shoots displaying his alleged styling work for fashion houses that he had stolen (infringed) from real publications to as French sociologist Bourdieu would call it: strategically “generate an initial capital of authority,” in the field of fashion, “by appropriating some of the legitimacy possessed by established houses.” 

Dazed was tipped off about the scam when a representative from the Parisian label Berluti “reached out to Dazed to detail how Mensan had reached out to their Paris office, claiming he was planning photoshoots in Japan. He told the brand that the editorials were for AnOther and Dazed, as well as ‘soon to be relaunched’ Dazed Japan.” Berluti leased samples that were worth around £10,000 to the imitation stylist. After promising to return the samples, Mensan cut contact with the label.”

This isn’t the first time Mensan has been accused of scamming designers and brands. He also targeted smaller brands. American designer Bradley Jordan complained about the designer online, and Back in May, Barcelona-based designer Martin Across told i-D that Mensan had contacted him in early 2015, seeking a handful of pieces from his latest collection. According to i-D: “The designer sought him on ‘social networks and confirmed that it had more than 40,000 followers on Instagram’ and, moved by the ability to view their garments in prestigious industry publications, sent the looks in question.” And recently designer Sadie Clayton has come forward "after approximately £14,000 worth of samples were sent to Mensan for a fabricated Dazed and I-D Japan shoot in May 2016, and after engaging with Clayton across several months about sending parcels back and invoices to claim expenses from Dazed, he again cut contact."

The case is an interesting one for an industry that has become so reliant on social media, and from a legal perspective is a wake up call for designers to take due diligence matters more seriously when dealing with digital influencers online.

The EU General Court Has Extinguished Louis Vuitton Rights To Exclusively Use Its Trademarked Chequerboard Logo.

The European General Court dished out a double blow to LV last week, cancelling two trademarks belonging to the luxury brand that protected its iconic chequerboard print 

The signature print known as the ‘Damier’, was first introduced on its canvas trunks in 1888, and is arguably the brands most celebrated pattern next to the LV monogram. The first trademark registration covered a dark brown and beige pattern and was registered as a trademark in 1998. The second trademark registration covered the same pattern but in black and grey and was registered as a trademark in 2008.

In two decisions dated 21 April 2015, the European General Court held that the trademark registrations were ‘basic and banal,’ and ‘lacked distinctive character.’ The legal battle, however, stretches back much further to 2008 when Louis Vuitton originally registered the trademark, which was then called into question in 2009 by German retailer Nanu-Nana who filed an application to have it repealed. In 2011, the request to invalidate the trademark was granted, and the legal team at Louis Vuitton has been fighting to appeal the decision ever since. 
This past month, the European General Court has chosen to uphold the decision made by the First Board of Appeal in 2011. Both the Cancellation Division and the EU Board of Appeal took the view that "the chequerboard pattern trade mark, was…basic and banal, composed of very simple elements and that it was well-known that the features had been commonly used with a decorative purpose in relation to various goods.” The courts found that the trademarks did not have any “features capable of distinguishing it from other representations of chequerboards," and as such was not capable of fulfilling the essential ‘identification’ or ‘origin’ function of a trade mark, and therefore was 'devoid of any distinctive character.'

Louis Vuitton had argued that the pattern was complex, particular and original and these arguments were dismissed by the Court. Essentially, the court felt that the checkerboard pattern lacked any brand-specific features, (unlike the signature LV monogram), capable of “individualising it in such a way that it would not appear as a common and basic chequerboard pattern," or that would "prevent the public perceiving the pattern as commonplace  and everyday."

The courts also found that LV had failed to “demonstrate that the relevant public would be in the habit of making an assumption on the commercial origin of the goods at hand based on patterns.” As the refusal applied across the entire EU, Louis Vuitton had to prove that consumers in every member state would relate the chequerboard marks back to Louis Vuitton. It was unsuccessful in doing so; the Court found that LV had failed to submit sufficient evidence of use to demonstrate that the marks had acquired distinctiveness in each of the then 15 EU member states from the date of registration, and therefore the European General Court held that it was right that the registrations should be cancelled.

Conclusion

Many major brands fight long and expensive legal battles to try to retain the exclusivity of a pattern or colour that they believe represents their brand. British luxury brand Burberry went through a similar struggle in 2013 when it appealed against a decision made by the Chinese Trade Mark Office in relation to the Burberry Check that revoked the luxury brands using the haymarket trademark on leather goods. 

As one of the world’s most valuable luxury brand, it is going to be useful to see what sort of impact the Court’s judgment will have on the Louis Vuitton’s future brand protection strategies. 

Commenting on the EU ruling, Sharon Daboul, a trademark attorney at intellectual property law firm EIP, said: “This trademark loss is a double-blow to Louis Vuitton. It can no longer claim to have a monopoly on the chequerboard pattern as applied to leather goods and bags, even if it was the first to come up with it. This loss might make it harder for the company to protect its bags against competitors or counterfeiters in the EU as it will no longer be able to rely on its trademark registrations. It also serves as a warning to brand owners that trademark registrations are not safe from challenge. An essential function of a trademark is to serve as a badge of trade origin. Trademarks must have distinctive character and a trademark loses its ability to be distinctive if it becomes commonplace in the trade; this can be as a result of the acts, or inactivity of the brand owner. If a trademark is allowed to become commonplace such that it can no longer distinguish a product from competitors, its value is lost and a pro-active third party can apply to cancel it."

Despite this, it seems very possible that Louis Vuitton will try to contest this ruling again, as the brand still has the opportunity to appeal the decision to the EU Court of Justice. Fashion Law & business reached out to Louis Vuitton for comment today, but so far has not received a response.
 

Zac Posen Is The Latest Brand To Be Hit With An Unpaid Intern Lawsuit; Is The Culture Of The Unpaid Fashion Internship Changing?

Is the fashion industry's long union with unpaid interns coming to an end?

There have been a string of recent lawsuits that suggest that the culture of the long sought after (unpaid) fashion internship is changing. Zac Posen is the latest brand to be hit with an unpaid intern lawsuit, joining a long list of other well-known fashion brands including; Lacoste, Burberry, IMG, Gucci, Calvin Klein, Marc Jacobs, Oscar de la Renta, Coach Inc., Donna Karan, Alexander McQueen among others that have been accused of inadequately remunerating their interns.

In the lawsuit brought against the New York fashion retailer in the New York Supreme Court this past week, former intern Kevin Shahroozi claims that the fashion brand Zac Posen (The House of Z LLC) was in violation of New York Labor Laws, failing to pay minimum wage for work he and others performed. In particular, according to the complaint Shahroozi maintains that from March 2013 through to July 2013 he worked three days a week for around 21 hours, performing tasks involving “sketching, cutting patterns, organizing fabric, sewing, testing fabrics, researching in books and magazines, photocopying and running errands...without receiving compensation or education and/or training.”

In the recent onslaught of cases brought by interns against these well-known fashion houses, each lawsuit follows a common theme; namely that during the internship period, the former unpaid intern was an “employee” of the business providing services that significantly benefited the company. For which they were not adequately compensated for. Plus the company, along with failing to provide education or training, which is a common prerequisite for internship programs, did not pay the intern a minimum wage. In the latest unpaid intern case against the designer Zac Posen, Shahroozi is seeking minimum wage compensation, as well as damages for him and his fellow employees.

But here’s the thing, in the highly competitive industry of fashion, the infamous internships have become comme il faut, the de rigueur for those without experience wanting to break into the world of fashion. And we wonder if this is the beginning of the end of such a tradition. Yet, is the obscure internship reality a place where young talented designers have their ideas copied, designs pinched, and work not inadequately credited.

While this surge of recent unpaid internship cases show the campaign against unpaid work is gaining ground, the fashion industry is left to wonder with this surge of legal cases what it to be said for the future culture of the customary unpaid internship in fashion? Conde Nast – whose titles include Vogue and GQ, announced in October 2013 that the company would stop taking on interns after they were sued by two former interns.

The rise and fall of the fashion unpaid internships is stirring mixed feelings, for some it has been hugely beneficial, for others it has been received with feelings of exploitation. Whatever the case, the culture of the fashion internship seems to be changing, whether it be through interns taking a stand, or fashion houses refusing to take on interns, whilst these pending litigated cases unfold, it will be interesting to see what kind of precedent these lawsuits set for fashion houses and interns in the future.
 

Chanel Accuses E-retailer Jeen of Counterfeiting Infringing Products

The French luxury fashion brand Chanel has filed a multi-million dollar trademark lawsuit against the online retailer Jeen over iphone cases that it claims bears a resemblance to the No.5 perfume bottle clutch purse from the brands 2014 Cruise collection.

Seen on Celebs such as Rihanna, Alexa Chung, Miroslava Duma and Diane Kruger the clutch costs an estimated $9,900, and Jeen have been retailing a very similar perfume bottle-inspired iphone case for $35.

In a lawsuit filed December 15th at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Paris based fashion brand Chanel has accused the retailer Jeen of “directly engaging in the sale of counterfeit and infringing products,” and maintains that “the defendants have used in connection with the sale of infringing goods, false designations of origins and false descriptions and representations, words [and] other symbols and trade dress which tend to falsely describe…goods in commerce…to the detriment of Chanel.”

Chanel’s complaint focuses on the Shop Jeen’s use of the Chanel trademarks in the “same stylised fashion” but for a different class of goods, and also Jeen’s advertising, which it claims is a “misappropriation of Chanel’s advertising ideas in the form of the Chanel marks.” Chanel argues that the defendants identified infringing activities “are likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake in the minds of consumers, the public, and the trade. Moreover, the defendants wrongful conduct is likely to create a false impression and deceive customers, the public, and the trade into believing there is a connection or association between Chanel genuine goods and the defendants infringing goods.”

Specifically, the complaint asserts that the “defendants have authorised an infringing use of the Chanel marks, in the defendants advertisements and promotion of their counterfeit and infringing cell phone covers [and] have misrepresented to members of the consuming public that they’re infringing goods advertised and sold by them are genuine, non-infringing products.” The complaint makes clear that these “advertising activities has been the proximate cause of damage to Chanel.” And that the defendant actions are in violation of section 43(a) of the lanham act, 15 U.S.C 1125(a) the "likelihood of confusion" standard for infringement, which forbids the importation of goods that infringe registered trademarks, and restrict, through the use of injunctions and damages, the use of false descriptions and trademark dilution.

According to the complaint Chanel has ordered that the Shop Jeen pay $2 million for the alleged infringing product sold as well as its legal fees and asked the court for “a permanent injunction preventing the defendants and their agents from manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, advertised or promoted distributing, selling or offering to sell there in fringing goods using the Chanel marks, or any logo, trade name or trademark or trade dress which may be calculated to falsely advertise the services of products.”

More on this case soon.

Luxury Brand Hermès Loses China Trademark Dispute

Fashion house Hermès, a luxury brand based in France, has lost its trademark dispute in China to cancel a trademark similar to the Chinese version of it's name. Hermes registered its English name in China in 1977. However, it never registered its Chinese name as a trademark.

In 1995, Dafeng a menswear company applied to the trademark board to the trademark a similar name for clothing products. The application granted and in 1997, Hermes appealed to the trademark board saying that the registered name, “爱玛仕” (Ai Ma Shi), was similar to the Chinese translation of Hermès, which is “爱马” (Ai Ma). The two names contain very similar Chinese characters with the same pronunciation.

However, the trademark board rejected Hermes' appeal and approved the Chinese company's registration in 2001. In 2009, Hermes once again appealed to the board, saying its Chinese name enjoyed a high reputation around the world and asking the board to cancel the disputed trademark. However, Hermes' application was rejected for a second time in May last year.
Hermes claimed that its Chinese name should be protected as an unregistered well-known trademark in China. It said the disputed trademark was an imitation of its Chinese name and was obtained through "deceptive means.

The court said that most of the evidence presented by Hermes happened after the disputed trademark had been registered. Also, the evidence was mainly media reports about the Chinese name of Hermes in Hong Kong, which fails to prove Hermes was well-known among consumers on the Chinese mainland.
 
For brand extension, you need a clear strategy. The case highlights the disadvantages of not being the first to file for an application of a trademark in overseas territories. Hermes had not secured trademark protection in the region With Chinese consumers being the largest market for purchasers of luxury goods,  as well as being one of the largest market for counterfeit goods, this decision could be particularly damaging for the French luxury brand.